OPINION: NIL rules and regulations pose a slippery slope for NCAA and amateur athletics as a whole.
Marc Goldstein is a sophomore studying journalism and opinion editor for The New Political.
Please note that the views and opinions do not reflect those of The New Political.
For the longest time in collegiate athletics, athletes have been begging for a cut of the share of the massive amounts of revenue. The NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association), the governing body for college sports, generated $1.14 billion in the fiscal year 2022. This figure is actually lower than in recent years, as the NCAA was dealing with some fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. Regardless, the athletes demanded a piece of this billion-dollar pie, something that, for decades, the NCAA was reluctant to cede.
However, in 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsome signed Senate Bill 206, a law that would allow college athletes to monetize their name, image and likeness (NIL). This was followed by Senate Bill 26. The former bill allowed the athletes to monetize, but the latter further clarified some of the language that made this possible. For example, SB206 legalizes the compensation for an athlete, SB26 states that the NCAA may not penalize a student-athlete for the compensation of their NIL.
To spare some of the legal language, the pair of bills opened the floodgates for other states to follow suit. Since California’s groundbreaking laws have been enacted, 31 states have put legislation into action. There are 19 states, including the District of Columbia, that have not passed laws. However, D.C. has a law that is pending legislation.
In simple terms, NIL allowed for student-athletes to partner with different brands and companies to sell products, similar to how professional athletes have endorsement deals. In the 2022 fiscal year, Bronny James, son of Los Angeles Lakers star Lebron James, is set to make $6.4 million to play basketball at the University of Southern California. Additionally, Livvy Dunne, a star gymnast for Louisiana State University, is set to make $3.4 million from various brands that also tie into her massive following on TikTok.
For many people in sports, this was a long time coming for athletes to finally get their share of the profits. Afterall, no one likes to work without getting paid. However, some critics of paying college athletes point to the fact that these individuals are getting, in some cases, a free education to some of the nation’s most prestigious universities.
Supporters of the legislation, according to a study done in 2021, are mainly African American men, older millennials and lower-income individuals. The supporters are mostly young, lower-income individuals who voted liberally. This is not to say that the issue is one that divides between parties, though.
The fact that lower-income African Americans support the legislation is not surprising. With the hundreds of thousands of student athletes and their families, this legislation already has a large foundation of potential voters.
The issue with NIL is not the support for it, but the can of worms it has seemingly opened up. Combined with the new transfer rules in the NCAA, the addition of NIL makes recruitment into something of a bidding war for transfer-portal athletes. For example, Caleb Williams transferred from Oklahoma to USC and made millions by making the move to Los Angeles. He is reportedly making more than US Olympic gold medalists Lindsey Vonn and Caeleb Dressel make from their respective sports.
The outcry from some is that these student athletes are being paid large figures, thus taking away the title of “amateur” from the landscape of college sports. The gaudy figures in the salary department are seen as a victory for the athletes, though. Seeing as the academic institutions are making a large sum off their likeness, it would, in a fairness aspect, mean that athletes are entitled to some of the money.
The main example that many point to is the NCAA Football video game, created by EA Sports. The last edition was produced in 2013, but was shut down due to lack of branding rights from the NCAA and ongoing legal troubles over likeness. The video game is likely slated to return in July 2024, much to the delight of fans.
One of the stronger examples of why athletes demanded monetary returns is the television deals that conferences have signed. The Power 5 Conferences (in football, it is made up of the Big Ten, Big 12, ACC, SEC and PAC-12) all have signed lucrative deals. For example, the Big Ten signed a deal with FOX, CBS and NBC that will be worth $8.05 billion over the next seven years. These numbers for each conference are all in the billions as each conference is cashing in on the marketability of the programs.
The money being brought in by the television deals have forced conference realignment that threatens to shake the balance of the entire collegiate sports world. The factors of these moves are almost entirely based on money. For example, USC and cross-town rival UCLA are moving to the Big Ten (as well as Oregon and Washington). The Big Ten has historically been a conference with almost all of its teams in the Midwest. The regional nature of these major conferences has now gone by the wayside.
To demonstrate just how much power the dollar has over college sports, look no further than the PAC-12. The conference is going basically defunct as all but two of its teams have left the conference. Washington State and Oregon State are the only ones remaining and had to settle out of court with the departing teams for voiding the incumbent television deal. One of the stalwart conferences in the country, the PAC-12, is now basically dissolved as the pair of teams are seemingly only there until another conference presents an offer to join.
While the majority of the money is being brought in by a combination of football and men’s basketball, this creates a ripple effect that is being felt throughout collegiate athletics. The allocation of money to these two sports by athletic departments around the country is leading schools to cut certain sports in favor of putting more money into the major sports.
The sheer amount of money being brought in by college athletics, while staggering, is a good thing long term. Long seen as the most corrupt sports organizations behind FIFA, the NCAA has seen viewership skyrocket in the years since NIL became commonplace. In the years prior to NIL, there were start-up leagues that offered money to athletes to bypass the NCAA and still have professional eligibility.
Any new development that is supposed to drastically change an institution will always come with negative byproducts. One of them has been the opening of the transfer portal, which, as mentioned, has turned players into products and created bidding wars. This creates a system of programs which can be characterized as “haves” and “have nots”. The way the new system works is that a player at a mid-major Division I program (Ohio, for example), plays very well and enters the transfer portal in order to get more attention at the next level (NFL Draft, NBA Draft, etc). The mid-major Division I program goes to a smaller program to take a player who has played well to replace the previously-departed player. This system of taking from the lower level goes all the way down, leaving the bottom levels of the NCAA barren of players.
The trickle-down effect strikes these smaller programs greater as there is not as much money to convince top athletes to remain with the program. The phrase “money talks” is seen in spades as athletes are taking the first opportunity to leave smaller schools in favor of larger ones.
The NCAA is in a precarious position. Some likened the new systems in place with regards to NIL and transfers as the “wild west”. The entire institution of college athletics seems to be either on the brink of collapse or the precipice of greatness. The next steps, while uncertain, will write the next chapter of the most tumultuous era in NCAA history.
